Re: [Ietf-languages] Are BCP 47 collective language codes more suitable for zonal auxiliary languages than the "art" (Artificial) code?

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Yaroslav Serhieiev wrote:

> P. S.  On the more practical side (here I attached a screenshot from
> LibreOffice with Hunspell dictionaries for Interslavic language), the
> software support is close to zero in both cases, be it art-... or
> sla-..., giving a second-class citizen experience for anyone who tries
> to strictly follow the recommendations. After a discussion with LO
> developers in their Bugzilla tracker, we checked that none of the
> potentially correct codes (art, sla) is present in the Unicode CLDR
> registry, which makes me wonder if they ever will be added there?

I'm not sure how CLDR would go about adding locale information for any of the "collection" language tags, for the simple reason that these tags represent multiple languages. Any locale information that would be correct for one member of the collection would not necessarily be correct, and might be profoundly wrong, for other members.

There is a separate CLDR mailing list; details are at https://corp.unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/cldr-users . (Sorry to keep redirecting you to different mailing lists, but this group does not control what goes into CLDR, although some of the main players happen to be here.)

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org